What is the spirit of cricket?

[Prince EWS]

That's every sport. What you're talking about there is just playing by the rules of the game.

Yeah but I think the rules of other sports are more acceptably violated and just seen as gamemanship because of the nature of them. If you can get away with standing 3m offside or raking the ball out in the ruck in a rugby league game you're going to do it and no-one's going to call you a cheat.

 

[Anil]

Does it exist? Should it? Who gets to decide what's in the spirit of the game the rules? Why is it that our stupid sport is the only one that still has this nonsense?

I think it all comes from this framing of cricket as a gentleman's game, an image that some are trying to maintain even now...these supposedly positive, morally superior "spirit of cricket" acts never really do anything other than muddy the waters and generate faux controversy...should have been eradicated from the game's lexicon long ago..playing by the rules of the game should be the end of it.

 

[Daemon]

Simon Taufel says it best.

• "My experience is when people don't like a dismissal under the Laws of Cricket, they cite the Spirit of Cricket to support their view.

You see this plastered across social media quite often whenever there's a controversial decision, and other than the surface message which is if people think it's against their team then it's against the spirit of cricket, if you dig deeper it doesn't really hold much weight as a statement.

Of course if a decision that's technically legal doesn't sit right with me, I'll quote the Spirit of Cricket. So what? That's one of the ways we change laws and improve on them. That's precisely what happened when the underarm was delivered. It was legal but nobody liked it. It was against what people felt was the spirit of cricket - an entirely subjective and personal/cultural thing.

 

[Spofforth]

That's precisely what happened when the underarm was delivered. It was legal but nobody liked it. It was against what people felt was the spirit of cricket - an entirely subjective and personal/cultural thing.

In the context in which it occurred I thought it was brilliant and know many people who felt similarly, and also look back on it with fondness if not a chuckle.

I get what you mean though, wouldn't have liked it to be a commonplace tactic and so the rule needed revising.

 

[honestbharani]

You see this plastered across social media quite often whenever there's a controversial decision, and other than the surface message which is if people think it's against their team then it's against the spirit of cricket, if you dig deeper it doesn't really hold much weight as a statement.

Of course if a decision that's technically legal doesn't sit right with me, I'll quote the Spirit of Cricket. So what? That's one of the ways we change laws and improve on them. That's precisely what happened when the underarm was delivered. It was legal but nobody liked it. It was against what people felt was the spirit of cricket - an entirely subjective and personal/cultural thing.

I think Taufel meant that most often, it just devolves into parochial posturing and I think that is true.

EDIT - And the underarm never really made sense to me because in those days, 6s were not that common place and especially to hit 1 under pressure. It was like GC took something that was very difficult and improbable to the impossible with that decision, which can come across as pretty cowardly. I mean, Aus were favorites to win anyway going into that last ball.

 

[ankitj]

Aussies are the authority on spirit of cricket.

 

[ankitj]

rules are made by a bunch of numpties who often times don't think things out properly and write laws that make no sense or are open to abuse.

"Talk about 2019 world cup final without talking about it"

 

[shortpitched713]

"Spirit of cricket" in cricket and "unwritten rules" in baseball are both bunk as logical constructs. Both sports are hyper-competitive modern spectacles played by extremely handsomely compensated, top tier athletes looking for every edge imaginable.

The commonality between both these concepts becomes clear though when you look at the construction of the rules of each game, and the fears it leads to.

Cricket is a batsman's game, baseball is a pitcher's game. The "unwritten", and the "spirit" arbitrarily prop up pitchers and batsmen respectively, and both are slowly falling away due to any lack of logic or fairness to them. It's no coincidence it's this way.

Because the laws of cricket don't let a batsman come back in, you don't want fielding teams to just run roughshod, leading to 45, 50, 65, 32 innings totals ending early on the second day. That **** would rob the spectacle of cricket. Hence, the "spirit" favors the batsmen.

Rules of baseball don't let a pitcher come in again after being subbed ( you wouldn't really want him to anyway, but that's another story), so the big fear there is all the good pitchers get smashed out of the game, and you're left with a farcical game with sub professional level lollipop throwers in a glorified home run derby. It's happened in an All Star game before, so this isn't a crazy fear. Hence the "unwritten" favor the pitchers.

In before "walking" favors fielding sides. I'm not convinced that walking was ever a meaningful thing in competitive cricket at any levels involving umpires, much less international level. It was mostly a cudgel that you could beat the opposing side with, even though you damn well knew you and your teammates probably wouldn't do it in the biggest moments either. Thankfully walking has basically died and become irrelevant now with DRS. Current "spirit" arguments are all just about cheeky runouts now, and guess who that is favoring.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Rules of baseball don't let a pitcher come in again after being subbed ( you wouldn't really want him to anyway, but that's another story), so the big fear there is all the good pitchers get smashed out of the game, and you're left with a farcical game with sub professional level lollipop throwers in a glorified home run derby. It's happened in an All Star game before, so this isn't a crazy fear. Hence the "unwritten" favor the pitchers.

Don't really agree with this tbh.

 

[Coronis]

"Spirit of cricket" in cricket and "unwritten rules" in baseball are both bunk as logical constructs. Both sports are hyper-competitive modern spectacles played by extremely handsomely compensated, top tier athletes looking for every edge imaginable.

The commonality between both these concepts becomes clear though when you look at the construction of the rules of each game, and the fears it leads to.

Cricket is a batsman's game, baseball is a pitcher's game. The "unwritten", and the "spirit" arbitrarily prop up pitchers and batsmen respectively, and both are slowly falling away due to any lack of logic or fairness to them. It's no coincidence it's this way.

Because the laws of cricket don't let a batsman come back in, you don't want fielding teams to just run roughshod, leading to 45, 50, 65, 32 innings totals ending early on the second day. That **** would rob the spectacle of cricket. Hence, the "spirit" favors the batsmen.

Rules of baseball don't let a pitcher come in again after being subbed ( you wouldn't really want him to anyway, but that's another story), so the big fear there is all the good pitchers get smashed out of the game, and you're left with a farcical game with sub professional level lollipop throwers in a glorified home run derby. It's happened in an All Star game before, so this isn't a crazy fear. Hence the "unwritten" favor the pitchers.

In before "walking" favors fielding sides. I'm not convinced that walking was ever a meaningful thing in competitive cricket at any levels involving umpires, much less international level. It was mostly a cudgel that you could beat the opposing side with, even though you damn well knew you and your teammates probably wouldn't do it in the biggest moments either. Thankfully walking has basically died and become irrelevant now with DRS. Current "spirit" arguments are all just about cheeky runouts now, and guess who that is favoring.

Pitchers are lame. They should go back to pitching the whole game the lazy bastards.

 

[Owzat]

The whole spirit of cricket just controversial. You got heaps of things within the laws of cricket but when someone does it then it becomes controversial. You don’t get it as much in other sports

well Bairstow did what I'm sure hundreds, thousands and millions have done across the years, walked out of his crease at the end of an over not attempting a run and not for one second believing the keeper would be shying at the stumps

like Mankad, and the more recent womankad incident, you have to tread carefully (excuse any pun) I watched the Dean dismissal, she was leaving the crease at the non-striker's end just as the bowler would have planted her foot and bowled IF she had had any intention of doing so.

as with those non-striker run out incidents there's always a counter-'argument' aka justification re "ball wasn't dead" or they'd been taking the mic all game, but ultimately the aussies who no doubt were up all night looking at the laws still miffed that they'd been cited for their grass roots grounded catch the previous day and CareyCad had devised a cunning plan.....

the only reason anyone would consider the ball was not dead was to gain a cheap wicket, much like the Dean run out. honestly, if the aussies understood what that mean, the derivation, aussies would have been better off winning without it, without controversy. obviously they were butt hurt but the catch that never was, not grasping that the diving motion to catch it, just like diving forward and shelling a catch as you impact the ground, is part of the catch

wouldn't be the first grounded catch the aussies have claimed in 2023, third I believe

 

[Owzat]

I think the laws of the game stand pretty well, but would be interested to understand those you think make no sense. What would you do to make things better?

Some of the playing conditions added on top for certain circumstances are less sensible and can make the game look farcical to both fans and outside observers.

there are a few things people 'insert' into the laws, not least the concept of walking and yet the laws last time I looked said nothing about only being out if the umpire gives it (they just adjudicate so basically not walking is forcing them to make a decision and maybe an error....)

also "benefit of the doubt to the batsman" is another one, a commentary special

as for clarification, simple really, insert addendums to existing law come rewrite others, for example 'dead ball' is open to exploitation if you argue, as the aussies did, they didn't consider the ball 'dead'. Bairstow obviously did, the umpire giving the bowler his cap back obviously did, whilst you can't have batsmen deciding 'dead ball' it's silly to have either side able to consider it still live - much like Sheldon who in housemate agreement has the right to decide when votes end in a tie....

I'd rewrite run out laws to cover Mankad, most non-strikers leave the crease a little early however BOTH batsmen/women have to make their ground so the advantage can be minimal except if say running a bye when it has gone to the keeper. I'd suggest they shouldn't leave the crease until the ball has pitched or even been hit, but generally speaking as a supposed civilised and traditional sport most little infringements are ignored and maybe that is where the "spirit" of cricket is, or what it is, not trying to gain every inch by any means to hand, or underhand


in a very recent poll 97% of aussies thought the spirit of the game was either WG Grace's ghost or the drink they have in the bar afterwards (only kidding)

 

[sledger]

I've said it before, but the "spirit of cricket" is a stupid, made-up, completely imaginary, meaningless, catch-all term that is used to refer to anything the speaker wants it to, and is only ever invoked when a team has been beaten completely fair and square and is salty about it. It should be banned.

As long as a team is playing within the rules, getting upset about it is absolutely weak af. It was (and still is) dire when people used "spirit of the game" arguments to whinge about the 2019 WC final, and it is equally bad seeing them trotted out in relation to the Bairstow dismissal.

 

[sledger]

Saying something is wrong/bad "because it's not in the spirit of the game" is just a poncy way of saying something is wrong/bad "because I didn't get what I want".

Absolutely terrible infantile nonsense.

 

[Molehill]

Saying something is wrong/bad "because it's not in the spirit of the game" is just a poncy way of saying something is wrong/bad "because I didn't get what I want".

Absolutely terrible infantile nonsense.

Yeah, I don't really give a monkeys either way about the Spirit. What annoys me is when one team takes it upon themselves to decide where the acceptable line of 'Spirit' is. Unfortunately, that one team seems to lack any form of consistency on this.....well actually it does, it's completely consistent in supporting various **** when it suits them.

Some might even call it 'Elite' Consistency!

 

[sledger]

Yeah, I don't really give a monkeys either way about the Spirit. What annoys me is when one team takes it upon themselves to decide where the acceptable line of 'Spirit' is. Unfortunately, that one team seems to lack any form of consistency on this.....well actually it does, it's completely consistent in supporting various **** when it suits them.

Some might even call it 'Elite' Consistency!

Oh yeah totally. "Spirit" is a lot like "justice". If the speaker gets what they want, it's here. If they don't, it's not.

 

[Ashes81]

There's 2 options on the Spirit of Cricket.
1. If it's legal, then it's ok. So Bodyline was fine, Chappell's underarm delivery, Mankads with no warning, the Bairstow stumping, England's running Grant Philips out in 2008, McCullum running Murali out etc.

2. Some things may be legal by the letter of the law but are not necessarily how we would want the game to be played. However, this leads to inconsistencies as different players, countries will have a different view in how the game should be played.

I think umpires have an unofficial role here. I think umpires should, as they often do, ask the captain of the relevant side do they want to uphold the appeal, bowl in a certain way etc.

This should alert the captain that he needs to step back and think about the issue and that his current choice may be against the Spirit of Cricket.

 

[sledger]

Should let umpires determine whether a bowling action is legal according to whether they think it is in the "spirit" of cricket imo.

Apropos of nothing, I hear Darrell Hair is available.

 

[Nas207]

The people complaining about boos dont get it. These players are millionaire role models who set the tone in terms of what's allowed. The booing is a natural tribal reaction of the herd shutting down a threat.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

I don't think the guys booing are monkeys.